Recent judicial practice has addressed an important issue regarding the correct interpretation of Law No. 132/2017 on compulsory motor third-party liability insurance (RCA).
The case originated from a judgment of the Bucharest Tribunal, which misinterpreted Article 9 of the law—governing situations involving multiple RCA insurance contracts.
Specifically, the Tribunal ordered an insurance company to pay substantial sums in moral and material damages, despite the fact that the RCA policy had already ceased to exist following the sale of the insured vehicle.
After the sale, the new owner—who caused the accident—took out a new RCA policy with another insurer. Nevertheless, the first-instance court incorrectly held that the legal provisions on multiple RCA policies applied, and ordered the former insurer to pay.
In doing so, the Tribunal:
- Unlawfully extended the scope of Article 9 of Law No. 132/2017, treating it as applicable even where multiple RCA policies were concluded by different persons with different insurers, although the provision clearly refers only to cases where the same insured person takes out multiple policies for the same vehicle; and
- Unduly restricted the application of Article 7(b) of the same law, disregarding the rule that an RCA contract terminates when the sale of the vehicle becomes effective against third parties—namely, upon deregistration from the seller’s name and registration under the buyer’s name.
On appeal, the Bucharest Court of Appeal corrected this interpretation, clarifying the proper scope of Article 9 of Law No. 132/2017.
The appellate court held that:
- The legal provisions on multiple RCA contracts apply exclusively where a single insured person concludes multiple RCA contracts for the same vehicle; and
- These provisions cannot be extended to cases where, following the sale of a vehicle, valid RCA policies exist simultaneously for different owners with different insurers—a situation that naturally arises from the transfer of ownership.
We consider the Court of Appeal’s decision both correct and necessary, as it restores the legal and logical coherence of the RCA framework.
Article 9 of Law No. 132/2017 was designed to prevent abuse through multiple insurance by the same person, not to penalise legitimate situations such as the sale and re-registration of a vehicle.
An unjustified expansion of this article’s scope would have disrupted the principles of civil liability and effectively doubled insurers’ payment obligations, undermining legal certainty and predictability within the insurance sector.
The Bucharest Court of Appeal’s ruling provides a valuable clarification for the consistent application of Law No. 132/2017, reaffirming that legal norms must always be interpreted strictly within the intent of the legislator.
This decision strengthens the balance between the rights of injured parties and the obligations of insurers, while ensuring predictability and stability in the RCA insurance system.